A Validation Study Comparing Risk Prediction Models of IgA Nephropathy

We aimed to validate three IgAN risk models proposed by an international collaborative study and another CKD risk model generated by an extended CKD cohort with our multicenter Chinese IgAN cohort. Biopsy-proven IgAN patients with an eGFR >= 15 ml/min/1.73 m(2) at baseline and a minimum follow-up of 6 months were enrolled. The primary outcomes were a composite outcome (50% decline in eGFR or ESRD) and ESRD. The performance of those models was assessed using discrimination, calibration, and reclassification. A total of 2,300 eligible cases were enrolled. Of them, 288 (12.5%) patients reached composite outcome and 214 (9.3%) patients reached ESRD during a median follow-up period of 30 months. Using the composite outcome for analysis, the Clinical, Limited, Full, and CKD models had relatively good performance with similar C statistics (0.81, 0.81, 0.82, and 0.82, respectively). While using ESRD as the end point, the four prediction models had better performance (all C statistics > 0.9). Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed that the models containing clinical and pathological variables (Full model and Limited model) had better discriminatory abilities than the models including only clinical indicators (Clinical model and CKD model) in low-risk patients characterized by higher baseline eGFR (>= 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). In conclusion, we validated recently reported IgAN and CKD risk models in our Chinese IgAN cohort. Compared to pure clinical models, adding pathological variables will increase performance in predicting ESRD in low-risk IgAN patients with baseline eGFR >= 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2).